Wednesday, December 30, 2020

narrators

we shouldn't make too much of a big deal about the nested-narrative structure of some novels. It's just a device - a fiction - that writers have used to compose their story. One of the ways that you can tell that this is true is that the outer-most narrator is usually a minor character / e.g. Lockwood in Wuthering Heights, and Walton in Frankenstein. When each character is telling their story, or their story is being told, it's told directly to the reader - it's not mediated through any of the characters further out in the structure. It's just that, in the world of the story, neither the reader nor the writer exist, so the writer needs to establish a pretext for the characters' stories to be told. 

Tuesday, December 29, 2020

generation

Mary Shelley wrote an introduction to the 1831 edition of Frankenstein, telling the story about how she came to write the novel during that famous summer in 1816 while staying with Lord Byron, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Mary's sister Claire, and Lord Byron's personal physician, John Polidori, in the Villa Diodati in Italy. 

The story she tells is that, because of rainy weather, the group was stuck indoors, so Byron proposed that each of them write a ghost story or horror story to pass the time. Mary couldn't think of anything for a few days, but then one night she stayed up listening to Shelley and Byron talk about the possibility of using electricity to re-animate a corpse (scientists of that era were beginning to discover that there was some kind of link between electrcity and the workings of the human or animal body). 

Then, that night, Mary had a nightmare about exactly that, and she woke up terrified, and thus was conceived the idea for her novel. 

This account written by Mary Shelley, forms the perfect outer-narrative for the novel, and because Frankenstein is structured as a set of nested narratives, with the introduction, the novel becomes a narrative (of the monster) within a narrative (of Victor Frankenstein) within a narrative (of Walton the sea captain and explorer) within a narrative (of Mary Shelley herself). 

One of the interesting things about Mary's account is that it seems to contain a number of factual inaccuracies, or, in other words, in some ways it's a work of fiction. Like, for example, she writes that no one else came up with any decent ideas for a story and she specifically mentions Polidori's idea about a skull-headed lady, but there's no evidence that Polidori worked on a story with that idea. What he did do was work on a story about a vampire (The Vampyre) which he later published and it did quite well. Some people even regard it as representing the birth of the whole vampire genre - the first modern vampire story that rendered the folk tale of the vampire in literary form. Christopher Frayling writes that The Vampyre 'is probably the most influential horror story of all time' (Vampyres: Lord Byron to Count Dracula p107). 

There's another conflict between Polidori's and Mary's account of events. She writes that, over a number of days, every morning the rest of the group would ask her if she had come up with an idea and she would always say she hadn't, until the morning after her nightmare. Polidori though, records in his diary, in the days after Byron initiated the challenge, that everyone else had begun their stories except himself. 

But I don't think the inaccuracies in Mary's story were deliberate deceptions. Maybe she was 'fictionalising' to some extent, but I think it's more the case that real life is always more complicated than any story and lends itself to different tellings. Like, for example, I did some research and found out that Polidori actually worked on three different stories, and his vampire story was probably mostly written at a later date. Maybe Mary's account of his story came from something he said as a joke or in passing. There are all kinds of possibilities. 

Even the fact that Polidori wrote and published the story about the vampire is more complex than it appears. It was actually published without his knowledge and attributed to Lord Byron, and even after both Byron and Polidori objected, Byron was still listed as the author when it was published as a book (it was first published in a periodical). Eventually, in later reprints, Polidori was listed as the author. But, to complicate things further, Polidori's story incorporated or was inspired by, a fragment that Byron wrote during the days at the Villa Diodati. Polidori also developed another of the three stories he worked on into a novella, which he published. 

One thing we know for sure is true in Mary's account is what she writes about the weather. It was more than a few days of inclement weather....it was seemingly relentless. That year has become known as 'the year without a summer'. The eruption of a couple of major volcanoes (especially one in Indonesia) resulted in abnormally low temperatures, heavy rain, and severe food shortages because of the effects on agriculture, throughout the world.  

That crisis probably shaped Frankenstein in a variety of ways. The novel is full of storms and other dramatic natural phenomena. I think Frankenstein also reflects Mary Shelley's personal experience of, not just the global weather crisis, but her own crises. Each of us is unique and we face our own personal crises, but there's also a universal aspect to the challenges we face. That's why a writer can embody these issues in their work, sometimes overtly, sometimes covertly, and they resonate with the reader. 

In her account of how she came to write Frankenstein, one of the most interesting ideas is the way that writing the story was not so much an expression of Mary's fears as a way for her to allay them. That's one of the things we do when we write....it's a way of exercising agency. 

Mary's initial response to her terrifying nightmare was not to think that that was really scary so it would make a good subject for my horror story.....no, she was trying to think of a way to distract herself and occupy her mind so that she could forget the image she had seen with her mind's eye. So, she decided to work on her story, and then it occurred to her that what had scared her would probably scare other people - so, she now had the idea for her story. 

Sunday, December 27, 2020

اعلى واسفل

As i've written before, i'm not that interested in books that talk about how the internet or technology is having an adverse effect on our thinking \\\ although I did buy and read part of one such book recently, just because i'm really interested these days in views that i don't agree with. i like to know what they have to say. 

I'm very interested though, in how technology affects the ways we think and communicate. word processing and email have had a huge impact on the way we write. 

and I suppose, in some ways, it has been an adverse effect....i'm just not interested in focusing on that alone. 

I always think it's funny/ interesting that Wordsworth wrote this 220 years ago: 

For a multitude of causes, unknown to former times, are now acting with a combined force to blunt the discriminating powers of the mind, and, unfitting it for all voluntary exertion, to reduce it to a state of almost savage torpor. The most effective of these causes are the great national events which are daily taking place, and the increasing accumulation of men in cities, where the uniformity of their occupations produces a craving for extraordinary incident, which the rapid communication of intelligence hourly gratifies. To this tendency of life and manners the literature and theatrical exhibitions of the country have conformed themselves. The invaluable works of our elder writers, I had almost said the works of Shakespeare and Milton, are driven into neglect by frantic novels, sickly and stupid German Tragedies, and deluges of idle and extravagant stories in verse.— from 'Preface to Lyrical Ballads'

It's so right and yet so wrong. and it just goes to show that, if you want to see adverse influences on the quality of people's thinking, you're going to see it. You don't need computers and the internet, for the powers of the mind to be blunted. that can be achieved by telegrams and newspapers. 

or, another way to put it is that at times writers and other intellectuals have always prognosticated that technology is going to cause our minds to atrophe. i think it's always a mistake to just see the negative, or to focus too much on it. Like for example, Wordsworth talks about 'the uniformity of their occupations' and that was true in the early days of the industrial revolution, but because of technological, social and legal developments, working conditions now are generally better and work is more rewarding and interesting....not always, but in general I think that's the case. The point is that things changed, and it was a mix of positive and negative, and that's the way it always is. 

Friday, December 25, 2020

the importance of context

one of my favourite films is Heat (1995) and one of the things that I like about it is that it's much more nuanced and complex - much more realistic - than other films about cops and criminals where the criminals are the bad guys and the cops are the good guys. In the film, the commonality between Al Pacino's character and Robert De Niro's character is highlighted. One of the greatest TV series ever - The Wire - did a similar thing: showing the human drama and the common humanity on both sides of the law.

Interestingly though, Michael Mann, who wrote, produced and directed Heat says that he saw the two characters as antithetical in many ways. Yes, they have some qualities in common, but they are worlds apart in other ways ||| Mann says that one of the important ways that the two are different is that Neal/ De Niro is a sociopath, while Vincent/ Pacino is not - he has a social conscience. 

a whole other dimension....now that I think of it....of this idea of parallelism between two ostensibly opposing characters, is that between the two actors - De Niro and Pacino. Their careers seem to parallel each other in many ways, but they're also very different, of course. 

The two appeared together in another film more recently - Righteous Kill (2008) - but it was nowhere near as succesful as Heat. So, it just goes to show - just having them together in a film isn't a guarantee of success. They're such great actors though that you could almost imagine that it would be a guarantee of success, but apparently not. and it's true that, although having De Niro and Pacino together was a draw-card for Heat, it's also a brilliant example of film making. They weren't expected to make up for any deficiencies in the film. 

I think a similar principle applies to a whole range of projects and work situations. From time to time you get the right chemistry of team members and context and success is achieved. but context is crucial. someone could be highly skilled, knowledgeable, experienced, and have a lot of talent and intelligence in their field, but the work setting and the rest of the team need to match up with those qualities for them to be effective. 

Having the right person in the wrong context or role is like using a formula 1 vehicle as a taxi // it's not made for that, and it's actually not going to do a good job.  

Thursday, December 24, 2020

પુસ્તકો આનંદ

one of the best books I've ever read is the Australian classic, Such is Life (1903) by Joseph Furphy (aka Tom Collins). It's also one of the most - maybe the most - difficult books I've read. It's an Australian classic, true, and it has a deeply Australian flavour, but there's nothing parochial about it. It's a heavy hitter. To my mind, it's up there with any of the classics...it is seriously good literature. 

another book I really like (and actually read around the same time, and for the same course....or maybe it was just relevant to the course but wasn't a prescribed text) is The Story of an African Farm (1883) by Olive Schreiner. It's weird....I don't remember much about the story, I just remember really loving it, and that it celebrated the value of books, which is probably one of the main things I loved about it. 

a writer that I know is one of the greats, but I struggle with, is Thomas Mann. His works are just so long and slow-moving - so ponderous and endlessly digressive, unlike War and Peace, which is very long but surprisingly readable. I think, over time, some books become inaccessible to us, because the modern mind can no longer engage with them. I'm not saying that Thomas Mann was a writer of period pieces - works that are popular in their time but get forgotten because they don't have lasting value. His works are great works of literature // not that I see it - I'm trusting Harold Bloom about it. I like the idea of Mann's The Magic Mountain (1924). Reading Bloom's commentary on it makes me want to read it, because he's so enthusiastic about it, but I've started it before and it didn't hold my interest. I just didn't really enjoy it - didn't get it - didn't see the art in it. It's on my shelf though, and I like having it there. 

that's one of the strange things about collecting books....there's a joy about having the collection that is distinct from the joy of reading all of the books. 

ಸೃಜನಶೀಲ

I cut my hair. 

with covid and everything it's been months and months since I got a hair cut, so it got pretty long and unkempt. then, as things eased up recently with restrictions, I had been meaning to go and get my hair cut. but then, now, there's a bit of uncertainty about what's happening in Sydney and whether we'll need to have further restrictions....so there's that, but also....I'm not that motivated to go out and get my hair cut. It's like one of many chores/ errands that I need to get around to and keep putting off. Going to the local shopping centre is no longer a routine thing for me....that's been one of the effects of covid. 

and then I had one of those moments that I sometimes have where I think - I'm just gona cut it myself, because I want to get it done and I'm sick of it the way it is. So I did the main cutting with scissors, and then, coincidentally, the clippers I had ordered from Amazon arrived today so I neatened up with them. 

being able to cut my own hair like this is one of the advantages of my hair thinning out as I get older. 

another thing that arrived today is a new pencil sharpener that I bought. I have a few different sets of coloured pencils, and I discovered recently that the sharperner I've been using doesn't fit my derwent pencils - they're too big. (I'm really not sure why I've never had this problem before) so I bought this quite expensive sharpener with a big and a little hole. and I've been getting back in the mood lately to do some art....I've got an idea of something I want to do...the only thing is that I'm not sure if I can do it with pencils and pens. i feel like I would need to use paint....or maybe some kind of markers? or maybe what I have in mind would be best achieved digitally. 

сэтгэлгээний арга

some people say that the way the internet fractures our attention with all the stimuli it provides, is a really negative thing that is making us dumber, basically, but I'm not sure about that. I think there is a time and place for both kinds of thinking - that frenetic, kind of distracted mode where you're working on multiple things, and the mode of sustained focus on a particular task. 

And despite what a lot of experts seem to be arguing, I don't think developing the skill of the 'distracted mode' necessarily diminishes your ability to read a whole book or stay on task for more than half an hour. That's what some books are arguing - that we're losing certain faculties...that, especially young people, who grew up with the internet, are incapable of the kind of sustained focus required to do excellent work. 

I think both ways of thinking are pretty much essential for a lot of the work we do these days. when you start a new project or task, it's good to get a sense of the whole thing \\\ to work quickly through it, making notes, plans, amendments - setting up a kind of framework. Then you work your way methodically through the project. It's not always, first distraction mode, then focus mode...sometimes you might alternate back and forth between the two a number of times...but both are important. 

even in academic work - which is all about thinking - that's the case. Even if they had the time to read every book and article relevant to their field, from cover to cover or start to finish, that wouldn't be a good use of their time. Academics need to be able to process a lot of material really quickly, and the only way to do that is to practice a mix of scanning (distracted mode) and close reading (focused attention).